Any audiophile amp forum?

[loudthud]

One more thing. The first five times you post on diyAudio, the post won't show up until it gets approved my a moderator. It can take more than an hour, just be patient. This is done to eliminate posts by 'bots.

[Alan0354]

Been on the DiyAudio a few days asking and reading. Don't look like the SS amp are any cheaper to build nor saving a lot of power!!! In fact, a few Krell power amps weight over 150lb!!! The heat sink and mechanical design is very complicated. Maybe tube is not so bad!!!

Whether it is cheap or expensive, I don't think I can take the heat generated by a class A amp in the living room. Not only it suck up power, I have to have the air condition on more during the summer and that can be expensive by itself.

They do have some very knowledgeable people there.

[km6xz]

Maybe you are getting ahead of yourself. What are yours signal sources? You mentioned TV and CD. Are you planning in one of the extended formats of CD or digital or normal CDs and videos? If the latter, why bother going to the expense of a high end tweaker amp when the program source will be compromised?
The acoustic space and reproducers are more important to the perception of sound than the electronics but high end tweakers focus on electronics because it is easier and cheaper, or the fantasize over really marginal details like cables and little hardware gadgets if they can't deal with the electronics.
After being in the recording end of music for so many decades, hearing the arguments over some real or imagined imaging or whatever that fills high-end hi-fi magazines and blogs, it is easy to see it is more like religion than sound or music and belief trumps reality every time and is equally immune to contrary evidence. I was approached by someone who was having an argument over placement in the sound stage of various instruments, over particularly, where the double bass was and whether the player was standing to the side or rear of the body in the "live" recording. These guys, both "experts" and known writers in the field at the time had strong opinions of placement of every instrument at the time of recording. They asked me to settle the argument because they knew I was involved with the recording.
It simply told them they were both wrong. The quintet was not even on the same continent at the same time, every part of spatial information was artificial and added to give an impression of imaging. Even straight classical recording that is touted as minimalist with a stereo pair is never actually recorded that way, if it was no one would like the result as not sounding "real".

The things that impact your impression of music have little to do with technical characteristics of sound and more on mood, environment, and suggestion. Recorded sound is no more reproduction of an actual acoustic event than a painting is a capture of the actual visual experience of the subject. The experience and recording are fully different concepts, the same way a concert is a different medium than recording and reproduction. If the two are confused as the same it is by intent to trick the listener to imagine what is not.

Have fun with building whatever, and spending whatever as long as it does not detract from what IS real like putting food on the table or taking time to experience things with the kids or spouse, things that actually do matter. For what a completely frivolous investment such as $3000/meter interconnects costs, you could take the family for a European vacation that would have life changing impact on all.
But if you want the best sound as you experience it, put the money into the room, make it inviting, cozy and carefully lit, with comfortable furnishings. That will improve the perception of the sound and happiness with the system even if you change nothing in the equipment.
A nice glass of wine at the beginning of a listening session will improve more than any circuit tweak or a $800 transformer.
If your goal is realism, such as it is, try a pair cheap-ass, ear mounted, electric mics in binaural recording of actual performances recorded on any $80 pocket digital recorder while sitting in the audience. Listening back with headphones will trump any speaker system or acoustic controlled space for realism. What tells our brain that it is real or not has very little to do with distortion, frequency response or any of the other tweaker obsessions in the hi-fi world, but more on spatial information that can't be delivered with speakers more than a few inches from you.

[überfuzz]

Dude, if you're really into HIFI you should have two of each, at least.


Pros or cons in SS vs tube in hifi equipment, I don't see that the one outweighs the other. From my perspective they rather level each-other out. Well, if you're into simulating your ideas, builds, there's actually better support for SS. There are some software tube models but they don't really match transistor models. On top of this your speaker elements will most likely be the crux. So if I were to boil down this to an advice, don't think tube vs SS, think frequency response and phase shifts in amplifier and speakers.

[Alan0354]

Maybe you are getting ahead of yourself. What are yours signal sources? You mentioned TV and CD. Are you planning in one of the extended formats of CD or digital or normal CDs and videos? If the latter, why bother going to the expense of a high end tweaker amp when the program source will be compromised?
The acoustic space and reproducers are more important to the perception of sound than the electronics but high end tweakers focus on electronics because it is easier and cheaper, or the fantasize over really marginal details like cables and little hardware gadgets if they can't deal with the electronics.
After being in the recording end of music for so many decades, hearing the arguments over some real or imagined imaging or whatever that fills high-end hi-fi magazines and blogs, it is easy to see it is more like religion than sound or music and belief trumps reality every time and is equally immune to contrary evidence. I was approached by someone who was having an argument over placement in the sound stage of various instruments, over particularly, where the double bass was and whether the player was standing to the side or rear of the body in the "live" recording. These guys, both "experts" and known writers in the field at the time had strong opinions of placement of every instrument at the time of recording. They asked me to settle the argument because they knew I was involved with the recording.
It simply told them they were both wrong. The quintet was not even on the same continent at the same time, every part of spatial information was artificial and added to give an impression of imaging. Even straight classical recording that is touted as minimalist with a stereo pair is never actually recorded that way, if it was no one would like the result as not sounding "real".

The things that impact your impression of music have little to do with technical characteristics of sound and more on mood, environment, and suggestion. Recorded sound is no more reproduction of an actual acoustic event than a painting is a capture of the actual visual experience of the subject. The experience and recording are fully different concepts, the same way a concert is a different medium than recording and reproduction. If the two are confused as the same it is by intent to trick the listener to imagine what is not.

Have fun with building whatever, and spending whatever as long as it does not detract from what IS real like putting food on the table or taking time to experience things with the kids or spouse, things that actually do matter. For what a completely frivolous investment such as $3000/meter interconnects costs, you could take the family for a European vacation that would have life changing impact on all.
But if you want the best sound as you experience it, put the money into the room, make it inviting, cozy and carefully lit, with comfortable furnishings. That will improve the perception of the sound and happiness with the system even if you change nothing in the equipment.
A nice glass of wine at the beginning of a listening session will improve more than any circuit tweak or a $800 transformer.
If your goal is realism, such as it is, try a pair cheap-ass, ear mounted, electric mics in binaural recording of actual performances recorded on any $80 pocket digital recorder while sitting in the audience. Listening back with headphones will trump any speaker system or acoustic controlled space for realism. What tells our brain that it is real or not has very little to do with distortion, frequency response or any of the other tweaker obsessions in the hi-fi world, but more on spatial information that can't be delivered with speakers more than a few inches from you.

I don't think I can agree with this. The room is the room, I know how important is the room. BUT given the room, the equipment make a day and night difference. When I go to a hifi store, I can A/B comparing the different amplifiers and different speakers. I brought my own CD for testing, using the same song to be consistent. It sure make a day and night difference. When I bought my speakers, I brought my own amp there to test and my power amp was no dogs. But the YBL they had really brought the speaker to life.

You gave example of recording, I am not interested in recording. I am only interested in playing back the recording that was already set. the difference of sound quality of a good amp is so obvious people have to be deaf not to notice. I gave my stepson an old SAE amp to go with his Kef. The amp blew up and he bought an Onkyo without telling me. One time I went to his house when he had his stereo on, I asked how come it sounded so awful, then he told me. Later on, I gave him a Marantz integrated amp, at least it sounds a lot better.

And believe me, the speaker cable make a day and night difference. If you don't hear the difference, it is likely you don't have a good quality system. Before, I had a pair of Kef with the SAE amp which is so so quality. I got away using 16 gauge cables. When I bought my JM Lab speakers and Acurus power amp, I hooked it up, and it did not sound much better. I was so upset thousands of dollars for almost nothing. Then out of desperation, I started playing with the speaker cable. I used 1 pair of 12 gauge monster type cable, it opened up the sound a lot. I kept experimenting, I even had my wife which know nothing about hifi to help listening. EVERY PAIR OF CABLE I ADDED IMPROVED THE SOUND. I ended up using 4 pairs of 12 gauge cables for each speaker to get the best sound.

It's the system, the sound is only as good as the weakest link of the system. Even the Kef does not need multiple pairs of cables. Kef is big step ahead of the commercial names like Infinity, Bose, Polk Audio, Energy or klipch etc., and miles ahead of those Pineer, Onkyo etal.

[Mick Bailey]

I'm 100% convinced about the impression of sound being more important than the technical qualities. In fact, I find most high-end systems placed in contrived listening spaces to be unmemorable. It does nothing for me when someone demonstrates a system by turning it up to unbearable levels and then pushing the bass so far my clothing flaps in time to the beat. Then tries to impress me with THD figures, output level, frequency response and anything else. Sitting in a provincial French cafe listening to a radio playing Freddie and the Dreamers 'I like it' sung in French, on a simmering summer day trumps any £30k system I've heard.

I have a recording that Pete Way (bassist with UFO) did straight off the mixing desk at a nearby venue, with the Schenker/Parker/Way/Mogg/Raymond lineup. Rough as hell. no post-production or anything else. I remember on one song the guitar dropped way down in volume, and that's exactly how it sounds on the recording.

Distortion, linearity nor anything else comes into it when you want to listen to something. It comes down to whether you want to listen to the song, or listen to the way the song is being reproduced.

[Alan0354]

Given the room, the system make a day and night difference. Both of you talk about recording. I don't care about recording. The recording is done, I just want to reproduce the best sound of the recording.

Audiophile is a totally different thing from recording and live performance. I don't care to go to concert or any right environment, I want to sit in the comfort of my own room to listen.

BTW, another major difference between a good system and a so so system. A good system does not need to be cranked up to sound good. It sounds good at low volume. That's what you get for paying a lot too.

[km6xz]

We are talking about material to reproduce. Where are you getting the signals to put into your system if they were not recorded? Maybe not by you but someone recorded it and their priorities are very different than yours. A/B tests or A/B/C/D/etc tests in a showroom tell very little about how your system will sound. Besides, as every salesman knows they can steer anyone to any system by slight differences in placement, by loudness etc.

[g1]

Could you please explain how you get 4 pairs of 12 guage into a connector? I'm confused about what kind of connectors you are using with your cables.

[Alan0354]

Could you please explain how you get 4 pairs of 12 guage into a connector? I'm confused about what kind of connectors you are using with your cables.

All cables are connected to dual banana plug and those can be stacked. Actually the speaker has separate banana plug input for woofer and mid/tweeter. So I use two pairs for woofer and two pairs for mid/tweeter.

It is very hard to believe. I am an EE and I thought it's all BS......until I tried it. I am the kind that is very skeptical of snake oil. Commercial never work on me. I don't even believe in using carbon comp resistor, orange caps, Mercury Magnetics, CTS pots..........all those snake oil. In fact, it was very hard for me to swallow the idea of Monster cable.....Until I tried it with my own ears. I was very stunned by that at the time.

I even had my wife that know nothing about audiophile or even sound. She noticed it. I stopped at 4 pairs as the 5th does not improve anymore. My system is not that good to tell anymore.

[Alan0354]

We are talking about material to reproduce. Where are you getting the signals to put into your system if they were not recorded? Maybe not by you but someone recorded it and their priorities are very different than yours. A/B tests or A/B/C/D/etc tests in a showroom tell very little about how your system will sound. Besides, as every salesman knows they can steer anyone to any system by slight differences in placement, by loudness etc.

And I am not interested in how the recording is produced!!! I watch tv, play CD and DVD movie on it. I don't care how the recording is made.

In high end showroom, nobody use tone stack to control the sound. Everything is plug in replace and listen. I brought my own CD, play the same song. I control the volume. The difference is glaringly obvious.

Do you even have a high end system at home? Or you are just talking only with the experience in the recording studio?

Let me repeat, I don't care how the recording is made. I don't care how it sound in the recording studio. I only care about the final product playing in my room. AND I am talking about much better sound quality than in the surround sound movie theater. I almost never go to movie theater, I have a 73" tv, sound system that is much better than in any theater already.

Audiophile appreciation is like listening to guitar amp. You tell someone that doesn't play guitar, they cannot tell the difference from a Marshall to a pignose!!!! If you are not into audiophile, I don't think you can appreciate this.

[km6xz]

Don't assume that someone does that not agree with you that they are ignorant or have no experience with the topic. I have done more controlled tests, more design for commercial hi-end manufacture, built more gear for personal use, and debunked more unfounded claims by hoo-doo fairydust salesmen in properly conducted tests, than anyone you ever ran across. If you are hearing dramatic differences in wire fine, every salesman will love you, but how does that relate to the qualities of amps when it is an entire system where the amp, unless defective, has less impact than dozens of other factors, with the room acoustics and recorded material being the most significant factors? The data you try you reproduce matters a lot, how and why it was recorded and what the producers intent, will swamp the minute differences in amplifiers. The engineering is not as big a factor with decently designed gear, as it psychology of perception and the environment in which the sound is heard. From your own experience you must concede that what sounds "good" and "different" on first hearing usually becomes less satisfying over a longer use period. That is observed time and time again, because some signature trait that makes it stand out with a first short exposure, becomes a liability over the long haul. Besides, when set up in your room and in your selected locations and your listening location, it is not going to sound anything like in the showroom. If not compared, A/B, and heard by itself over an extended period, it would be very rare that anyone would hear any deficiency with any of them unless by suggestion.
TV sound is not optimized for hi-end listening so what equipment sounds best is that which not the same as what sounds best with carefully prepared material intended for quality reproduction. Any broadcast or theatrical release will have very different dynamic range than, say, a classical high definition DVD/CD ( DVD-Audio, SACD, and HDCD ) on the correct decoding player, since mixing to picture is a different philosophy and intent than mixing for audio only reproduction. You can see this by just watching a movie or broadcast and turn off the picture, the sound will be very different that you would expect for music recordings without images. Since you acknowledge that acoustic environment makes a big difference, why not start with the big factors like optimizing the room and listening position? That will give the biggest return on investment. Salesmen like people to A/B compare in short term tests. They know what sounds better in a few seconds test are usually the ones that cause the most ear fatigue over a longer period so the salesman can turn one sales into a dozen sales a couple months apart. The more the dramatic difference, the more odds of it failing so satisfy over the long haul.
Do anything you want, your preference is yours personally, but the problem comes in when you come here and claim one is "better" or a dramatic difference, because most of us who have been around this for decades figure either delusion or ignorance is in play. Preferring one variable in a very brief experience with its unique environment, system components, program material, loudness, placement and declaring one of those elements is "better" is not even rational. Any one of those amps or speakers used in the showroom had just as great of odds of sounding best in your actual listening environment and the one that sounds best in more environments are often not dramatic or standouts at all. Some sonic trait you believe to be there in that test environment is just as likely be a defect that compensates for a defect in the environment and will be seen as a defect in another configuration. For example the one that has the best bottom end in the showroom might be boomy and hyped in your home because of room dimensions or ratios of dimensions or the showroom had a different decay time. The ratio of reflected to direct sound will be very different at different distances from rear wall or from driver to ear, could cause one system component to show well when it is not going to in another environment. Many showrooms have component selector boxes where you can switch between speakers, amps, preamps ect. Some are passive and others are compensated, where there are trim pots used to normalize loudness. That can be a good thing or bad thing but you have to know which is which. Those that can be normalize loudness allow for rapid A/B'ing which you can't do with an uncompensated passive switch box. You can with passives but the comparison is useless because the one that is even slightly louder will be the preferred one. The salesman knows every customer picks the louder one unless the spl difference is obviously different. On compensated switchers, each piece of equipment is connected to a trimmer that can be set to maintain a set level between different units. That is fine if set precisely but can be intentionally set to favor the unit with more commission of profit by adding .5 or 1 db bias or if blatant, 3db, the MDD level difference in mid range, at mid level. Slower moving speakers or ones with a spiff attached for the salesman by the manufacturer will get the bias so will sell more than the others. If is common in hi-fi stores to set up a "strawman" set up. That is a very high end system as a reference, to compare the more affordable units they are trying to push. By setting the bias downward for the high end system they can get customers to get excited over the plain Jane system they can afford by it being as "good or better" than the $50,000 sitting next to it. Others will be attracted to the $50k system primarily due to price as proof of quality. The manufacturer of the amps I designed under contract priced my amps from $5400/channel for mono block 50 watt amps to $45,000 per channel for 200 watt fluid cooled amps, and got rave reviews as sold well. They were fine but not spectacular amps, designed with specific constraints placed by the manufacturer. They were designed to play on the psychology of the buyer more than the technical superiority, which is the whole reason for "hi-end" industry in the first place.

[J M Fahey]

I brought my own CD, play the same song. I control the volume. The difference is glaringly obvious.

You .... own ... a .... CD?
Wow !!!!

Do you even have a high end system at home? Or you are just talking only with the experience in the recording studio?

"Only????"
I see a 9 y.o. kid dismissing a NASA astronaut experience because he doesn't play or care about Sony Playstation "Space Commander"

I don't care how it sound in the recording studio. I only care about the final product playing in my room.

Ah !!! But the ORIGINAL sound of any song is what was created by the Artist IN the Recording Studio !!!!!
What you bought for $10.99 is but a cheap, mass produced copy of that.

Plus the fact that a CD or DVD, a compressed and "optimized" for general distribution storage medium will never never ever ever sound or even have the amount of data of the original recording stored "RAW" in the Studio machines !!!!
NEVER EVER.

The same way that a puny slow thin cassette tape can never ever have the dynamic range, cleanliness, etc. of the original 2" or whatever studio tape, running at 15 or 30 ips, and for the same reason.

The equipment a Recording Studio can afford, both to buy and to maintain/calibrate, is light years ahead of *anything* you can have at home.

AND I am talking about much better sound quality than in the surround sound movie theater. I almost never go to movie theater, I have a 73" tv, sound system that is much better than in any theater already.

Do you have better equipment than what's available and regularly used in a Recording Studio?

Audiophile appreciation is like listening to guitar amp.

You are crazy, it's exactly the opposite.

You tell someone that doesn't play guitar, they cannot tell the difference from a Marshall to a pignose!!!!

The most stupid statement I have read in a long time.
Tell that to Leo Fender and Jim Marshall, who could not play a guitar.

[Alan0354]

You .... own ... a .... CD?
Wow !!!!


"Only????"
I see a 9 y.o. kid dismissing a NASA astronaut experience because he doesn't play or care about Sony Playstation "Space Commander"


Ah !!! But the ORIGINAL sound of any song is what was created by the Artist IN the Recording Studio !!!!!
What you bought for $10.99 is but a cheap, mass produced copy of that.

Plus the fact that a CD or DVD, a compressed and "optimized" for general distribution storage medium will never never ever ever sound or even have the amount of data of the original recording stored "RAW" in the Studio machines !!!!
NEVER EVER.

The same way that a puny slow thin cassette tape can never ever have the dynamic range, cleanliness, etc. of the original 2" or whatever studio tape, running at 15 or 30 ips, and for the same reason.

The equipment a Recording Studio can afford, both to buy and to maintain/calibrate, is light years ahead of *anything* you can have at home.


Do you have better equipment than what's available and regularly used in a Recording Studio?


You are crazy, it's exactly the opposite.


The most stupid statement I have read in a long time.
Tell that to Leo Fender and Jim Marshall, who could not play a guitar.

That is absolutely BS.

I am here to talk about amp, not getting into argument what is right or wrong. You don't buy it, it's your opinion. I respect you as an amp designer, but don't you tell me what is audiophile. I have been letting a lot of your snipe remarks go already out of respect.

I shouldn't even ask these question here as you guys are guitar amp people, not audiophile people.

I don't appreciate your rude comment

I don't get into Soundguruman type of stuff, but don't you think I will put up with people like you.

[Alan0354]

We should just close this thread before getting ugly. I posted to ask for a good technical forum on audiophile, I appreciate I got a good site (DiyAudio). Let's just end this and get back to guitar amp which is what this forum is about.